As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Please Read This Peer-Reviewed Paper, Which Disproves the Argument that We Are Making

Things have been slow around here at the New World Order lunchroom, but the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, in their desperate attempt to turn out new fundraising material, can always be counted on to produce some new idiocy eventually.

Now they have decided to produce a serious of FAQs addressing questions people have regarding their crackpot theories, with the second asking:

They then go on to argue that the collapse started in the location where the aircraft did not have its major impact, ignoring the whole point that the fires were the primary cause of the collapse, but that isn't the major idiocy of this article, which comes to the conclusion, once again on the magical properties of thermite:

Second, a demolition using advanced nanothermite material (which has been identified in the WTC dust) may help to explain why the fires started by the planes did not set off explosive devices. As noted by Dr. Steven Jones:

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 ºF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.

Now the truely ironic (and moronic) thing, is although they quote Steven Jones from a Journal of 9/11 Studies paper from 2006 regarding the ignition point of Thermite, they first link to the nanothermite paper (authored by Jones and others) where they tested their alleged nanothermite sample. That paper had this to say about the ignition point of their "explosives":

3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry
Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ˚C

This of course is several hundred degrees below the ignition point of Thermite cited above (1700 F = 927C), and well within the temperatures produced within a normal office fire, so their own experiment either disproves the conclusions of the article itself, or their assertion that this was Thermite, or in fact... both assertions.

H/T to NoahFence on the JREF forum for pointing out this latest bit of idiocy.

168 Comments:

Cue the jagwit goat fucker to proclaim "there's no contradiction." Of course, he'll provide not a shred of "evidence" or anyhting that a sane person would recognize as "logic" to substantiate his assertion (heavy emphasis on ass when mentioning the goat fucker), while--you guessed it!--contradicting himself in the process.

Same shit, different day.

So when do you plan to honor your promise and ban the thread hijacking piece-of-shit?

If C-4 can't survive in a fire, then it's not possible that any kind of explosive would survive.

That's why they come back to the black hole that is super secret nanothermite. Hey, if no existing explosive can do the things we need it to do for our crackpot theory to be correct, let's just invent one that fits into all the gaps. It's an explosive! It's an incendiary! It's a floor wax! It's a dessert topping!

UtterFail, no contradiction has been shown. One temperature was recorded in a differential scanning calorimeter, the other one has been deduced from the color of the chip. If you think there is something bogus about differing performance in different conditions, perhaps you would like to explain in detail why the performance was different.

You may as well complain that I am inconsistent because I did laundry Thursday night and did not do it Friday morning. Reality is complicated.

Ian, you are taking your picture out of context. If you would bother to read the caption of the photo in question, you would see that that the statement being made (in the context of an article about who demolished the towers) is that whoever demolished the towers had access to a sophisticated nano-engineered incendiary.

Certainly there is virtue in looking at the pictures, and I generally look at the pictures before reading an article, but you have to read the article too or you'll only make a fool of yourself.

ToothlessandAlwaysWacko, where do you get your expertise in explosives and what they do in a fire?

And so what if they can't survive a fire? What makes you think there were explosives at the fire floors? According to the FAQ in question, #2, NIST claims the WTC1 collapse initiated at the 98th floor where the fires were not severe, nor was any possible damage to the fireproofing severe. Explosives on the 98th floor would have no problem surviving.

Ian, where do you get your expertise in explosives that allows you to determine that "no existing explosive can do the things we need it to do"? When NIST wanted to dispose of the explosives theory in connection with WTC7, they created a ridiculous scenario by which the largest column in the building must be demolished in its entirety by the loudest explosive they could find, and then they dismissed the entire explosive hypothesis on the basis of noise.Until you examine the characteristics of existing new high-tech explosives, you have no basis for your claim and you're only making a fool of yourself.

Also, consider that planting explosives inside hollow columns might have been quieter than blowing the columns from inside. No penetration of the column wall would be necessary for a powerful explosive planted inside the column to buckle its walls.

Ian, you are taking your picture out of context. If you would bother to read the caption of the photo in question, you would see that that the statement being made (in the context of an article about who demolished the towers) is that whoever demolished the towers had access to a sophisticated nano-engineered incendiary.

Thanks for proving my point. Gage and his disciples have a real problem on their hands, which they wave away with baseless assertions about a "sophisticated nano-engineered incendiary". Conveniently, it behaves exactly as you need it to when you're making an "argument".

Ian, where do you get your expertise in explosives that allows you to determine that "no existing explosive can do the things we need it to do"?

It's funny being lectured on "expertise" from an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents.

Until you examine the characteristics of existing new high-tech explosives, you have no basis for your claim and you're only making a fool of yourself.

So it was explosives and not thermite that destroyed the towers? So why does Gage argue about "nanothermite"? Why did you just talk about "incendiaries"?

What a great thread. Brian babbles about the USS Liberty until he's forced to concede he knows nothing about it. He then says a global Jewish conspiracy was involved in 9/11 (while calling Kevin Barrett an anti-semite the whole time). He accidentally admits that he knows that his quotes of Dr. Sunder are irrelevant, and then squeals and squeals when we pointed that out to him. He also calls us "girls" multiple times.

This was almost exactly a year ago. Nothing about Brian has changed since. He's still babbling about things he doesn't understand in the least, and he still squeals and calls us "girls" when we mock him for it.

Also, consider that planting explosives inside hollow columns might have been quieter than blowing the columns from inside. No penetration of the column wall would be necessary for a powerful explosive planted inside the column to buckle its walls.

So you have lots of evidence that powerful explosives were planted inside the columns, I assume? Also, why are you talking about thermite if explosives did it?

So lets get this straight Brian, wireless igniters were used to ignite the NT matches which then in turn ignited the explosives inside the column? Must have been some magic transmitters along with this one. Who devised this plan? Milton Bradley?

Also, consider that planting explosives inside hollow columns might have been quieter than blowing the columns from inside. No penetration of the column wall would be necessary for a powerful explosive planted inside the column to buckle its walls.

wow, show me a single worker in the building that agrees with you on this stupid statement. None.

The goat fucker brays, "...no contradiction has been shown. One temperature was recorded in a differential scanning calorimeter, the other one has been deduced from the color of the chip. If you think there is something bogus about differing performance in different conditions, perhaps you would like to explain in detail why the performance was different."

It's not necessary for me to explain anything, goat fucker. In fact, the burden of proof falls on your shoulders and your shoulders alone. So why did the red/gray chips ignite in the range 415-435 ˚C when Jones' BYU experiments failed to ignite thermite at a temperature of 927 ˚C? Perhaps you'd like to explain the ~500 ˚C gaping hole in your idiotic "theory."

And no, jackass, "differing performance in different conditions" doesn't explain away ~500 ˚C. Or do you routinely accept a +/- ~500 ˚C margin of error?

Fucking idiot.

The goat fucker brays, "...You may as well complain that I am inconsistent because I did laundry Thursday night and did not do it Friday morning. Reality is complicated."

On the contrary, goat fucker, you're consistently inconsistent. And it's easy to explain because you're a compulsive liar.

I simply found proofs that this paint was applied on WTC1 and WTC2 floor trusses in NIST report NCSTAR 1-6B, Appendix B. p. 155. See my post No 104 here and following posts. Just for you again, the composition of this epoxy paint applied to the steel joists by anodic electrocoating was:

"...of course there are a lot of truthers among the anti-semites. That's why the Mossad set the Dancing Israelis out there and why Larry Silverstein said "pull it". By distracting the truth movement with Nazi nonsense they were doing their neocon friends in DC a favor." -- The goat fucker, from Pat's Free Gaza Movement Troofers thread.

So, goat fucker, tell us again about the alleged "difference" between you and Kevin Barrett.

Ian, the claims that samples of a sophisticated nano-engineered incendiary were found are quite well based, evidenced by electron micrographs and calorimetry. If think you can show these claims to be wrong, by all means, give it your best shot. Simply declaring "False!" is a two-year-old's argument.

Ian, I don't claim any expertise in explosives. You do. But you're not demonstrating it, only making baseless ianane claims.

Ian, I did not babble about the USS Liberty. I argued with a couple of idiots who thought a unique ship that looked like a floating electrical transmission tower could be misidentified.

I never said a global Jewish conspiracy was involved in 9/11.You are a liar.

Your reasoning seems to be that one must prove the use of explosives before one considers that the sounds of explosions might be contained if they take place inside heavy steel boxes. You are in a big hurry to declare "case closed" before the case has even been opened.

ToothlessandAlwaysWacko, since when have you encountered explosives in a fire?

William_Rodriguez, do you have a point? As you well know, few people who were inside the building at the time of the collapse survived it. Are you claiming that people would be able to hear explosions taking place inside box columns built of 2" steel plate which explosions did not rupture the plates but only bulged them? Do you know how sound is transmitted?

ButtGale, I don't know why the red/gray chips ignite at different temperatures under different conditions, and neither do you. If you want to make an issue of it, you should write to Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer and find out. Why do you assume that a difference is an error?

The major difference between me and Kevin Barrett is that Barrett is a bigot, a liar, and a lunatic--and I am none of those things.

WAQo, thanks for you information about primer paint on floor trusses. I read it with interest, but hardly found it mind-blowing. It says the pigment in the paint was 4% strontium chromate. There is a small chromium peak in the EDS spectrum, but I don't see any strontium. Perhaps you should take this question up with Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer.

The Duchess of Palo Alto brays, "...I don't know why the red/gray chips ignite at different temperatures under different conditions, and neither do you. If you want to make an issue of it, you should write to Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer and find out. Why do you assume that a difference is an error?"

Yeah, right Duchess, a 500 ˚C margin of error here and 500 ˚C margin of error there, and sooner or later we're talking a real margin of error. Right, jackass?

Fucking idiot.

Face it, goat fucker, Dr. Jones is a fraud. And so are you.

FAIL.

The Duchess of Palo Alto squeals, "...The major difference between me and Kevin Barrett is that Barrett is a bigot, a liar, and a lunatic--and I am none of those things."

That's right, goat fucker, continue to lie while the evidence stares you straight in the face.

Should we expect less from a lunatic who ran through the Mission District wearing nothing but a football helmet, a bra, and an inflatable inner tube?

So goat fucker, how much time per week do you spend waving your wand at the little old ladies who frequent Golden Gate Park?

UtterFail you have not shown that there's any error at all. Apple juice is not apple pie, and it's unreasonable to think that the differences are "errors". Ask Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer for an explanation. Then if they can't provide one, or if it's demonstrably bogus, then you can claim an error.

I don't remember having engaged in any of the activities you ascribe to me. Do you actually think such claims are funny?

ButtGale, all of my calorimetry has been done in improvised styrofoam containers. Thus I do not claim to be an expert in differential scanning calorimeters. If you are an expert, then perhaps you should explain why you think the temperature discrepancy is an error.

The contradiction was brought to light by JREF's "NoahFence" and James B.

If in fact Jones' samples did ignite "in the range 415-435 ˚C," then the presence of "nanothermite" in Jones' samples is brought into serious doubt by Jones own experimental results, in which, "[thermite] was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 ºF). [Jones, et al] demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature."

So answer the question, goat fucker: How does a differential scanning calorimeter introduce a 500 ˚C margin of error in Jones' experimental results?

You're the one who claims there's nothing "bogus about differing performance in different conditions," so the burden of proof to substantiate that idiotic assertion (heavy emphasis on ass when mentioning the goat fucker) rests on your shoulders and your shoulders alone. And your intellectually dishonest effort to shift the burden of proof won't fly, Duchess.

Put up or shut up, goat fucker. You made the wild assertion, so you prove it.

Also, consider that planting explosives inside hollow columns might have been quieter than blowing the columns from inside. No penetration of the column wall would be necessary for a powerful explosive planted inside the column to buckle its walls.

Duchess, it took you almost 2 hours to come up with that lame-brained evasion?

Weak.

FACT: "[thermite] was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 ºF). [Jones, et al] demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature."

IT IS ALLEGED that Jones' samples were subjected to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter and the samples are alleged to ignite "in the range 415-435 ˚C."

You can't have it both ways, Duchess.

How do you explain the 500 ˚C temperature differential between Jones' thermite ignition temperature test, which demonstrates that thermite will fail to ignite at 927 ˚C, and Jones' claim that "the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ˚C"?

If you can't see that Jones' own experimental results invalidate his "thermitic material at Ground Zero" theory, you're an idiot (or you're trying to bury your latest humiliating defeat in dumbspam).

Talk about confirmation bias.

So answer the question, goat fucker: How does a differential scanning calorimeter introduce a 500 ˚C margin of error in Jones' experimental results?

Troofer pseudo-science is to science what Dr. Josef Mengele is to gynecology.

Ian, the claims that samples of a sophisticated nano-engineered incendiary were found are quite well based, evidenced by electron micrographs and calorimetry. If think you can show these claims to be wrong, by all means, give it your best shot. Simply declaring "False!" is a two-year-old's argument.

So well based that only an unemployed janitor believes it. Don't you think it's strange that no chemists or materials scientists agree with you, petgoat?

Ian, I don't claim any expertise in explosives. You do. But you're not demonstrating it, only making baseless ianane claims.

Thanks for proving my point. You have no expertise in these subjects you babble about.

Ian, I did not babble about the USS Liberty. I argued with a couple of idiots who thought a unique ship that looked like a floating electrical transmission tower could be misidentified.

Thanks for proving my point. You babbled about something you know nothing about, just like you babble about explosives and thermite despite knowing nothing about either.

I never said a global Jewish conspiracy was involved in 9/11.You are a liar.

Your reasoning seems to be that one must prove the use of explosives before one considers that the sounds of explosions might be contained if they take place inside heavy steel boxes.You are in a big hurry to declare "case closed" before the case has even been opened.

As usual, petgoat has no evidence of explosives, but that doesn't prevent him from posting dumbspam about explosives.

The major difference between me and Kevin Barrett is that Barrett is a bigot, a liar, and a lunatic--and I am none of those things.

Actually, you're all three. In addition, you're a failed janitor, a cross-dresser, a glue-sniffing pervert, and you wash your hair with soap.

Also, I assume you're no longer going to challenge us on what Dr. Sunder said, since you've already admitted that what he said to NOVA is meaningless. Please don't tell me that you're going to continue squealing about that....

UtterFail, I've answered you three times at least. Your continued spamming of the same crap is dishonest. Take it up with Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer. You're comparing applesauce and orange juice.

James, what exactly is stupid about the notion that explosions inside steel containers that did not rupture the walls but only bulged them would not make loud sounds outside the columns? How is sound propagated?

Ian, if you would bother to check the AE911Truth roster of chemists and materials scientists (few of whom are engineers, by the way) you would find many who agree with me. I've found that chemists are quick to appreciate the controlled demolition hypothesis because, unlike you, they understand the laws of thermodyanamics.

The Duchess of Palo Alto squeals, "...I've answered you three times at least. Your continued spamming of the same crap is dishonest. Take it up with Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer. You're comparing applesauce and orange juice."

Spam? Bullshit!

My argument strikes at the root of James B's OP and drives a stake through the heart of the 9/11 "truth movements" bogus "nanothermite" theory.

Furthermore, your "comparing applesauce and orange juice" assertion (heavy emphasis on ass when mentioning the goat fucker) is nothing more than another evasion masquerading as a "rebuttal."

In the final analysis, Jones and A&E for 9/11 "truth" are resorting to an intellectually dishonest argument. And YOU defend that bogus argument when you claim "no contradiction has been shown."

For example, when it's necessary to "prove" that the airliners couldn't have disturbed the demolition devices, the troofers tell us the thermite reaction would not ignite at 927 ˚C; yet, in the same breath, the troofers claim that "the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ˚C."

That's a naked contradiction, asshole.

So which is it, Duchess?

Does "nanothermite" ignite at a temperature ABOVE 927 ˚C, or does "nanothermite" ignite "in the range 415-435 ˚C"?

You can't have it both ways, Duchess.

FAIL.

Face it, Duchess, you're talking about both sides of your mealy mouth while you continue to defend the indefensible.

Thus, my prediction was correct. And we know this is true because you proclaim "there's no contradiction," while you blatantly contradict yourself.

So, I'll ask you again Duchess: Does "nanothermite" ignite at a temperature ABOVE 927 ˚C, or does "nanothermite" ignite "in the range 415-435 ˚C"?

You can't have it both ways, asshole.

Now, answer the questions, asshole.

Question [1]: How do you explain the 500 ˚C temperature differential between Jones' thermite ignition temperature test, which demonstrates that thermite will fail to ignite at 927 ˚C, and Jones' claim that "the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ˚C"?

Question [2]: How does a differential scanning calorimeter introduce a 500 ˚C margin of error in Jones' experimental results?

Question [3]: Does "nanothermite" ignite at a temperature ABOVE 927 ˚C, or does "nanothermite" ignite "in the range 415-435 ˚C"?

Gosh Duchess, what would Laurie Van Auken say if she discovered that you steadfastly refuse to answer perfectly legitimate questions--you double-talking fraud?

Are you claiming that people would be able to hear explosions taking place inside box columns built of 2" steel plate which explosions did not rupture the plates but only bulged them? Do you know how sound is transmitted?

He may not, but I do with four years of Sonar experience. Sound travels ten times fast through solid metals than it does in the air...

Ian, if you would bother to check the AE911Truth roster of chemists and materials scientists (few of whom are engineers, by the way) you would find many who agree with me.

I checked. There are no chemists or materials scientists. There are just liars, con artists, and lunatics.

I've found that chemists are quick to appreciate the controlled demolition hypothesis because, unlike you, they understand the laws of thermodyanamics.

Brian, it's because you failed high school physics and don't understand physics that you think the WTC were destroyed in a controlled demolition. Of course, you're a failed janitor, so nobody cares what you think. Real scientists don't waste their time with frauds like Richard Gage.

Squeeeaaaaal, coward! Run away from those questions! Faster! Punch that straw man! Make Pat proud!

Yup, you've beaten us all. Just like you've won at life by being a scrawny unemployed virgin with a ratty beard and a closet full of black t-shirts. When mom takes away your internet privileges, it's because she can't handle the truth, right?

UtterFail, you don't have an argument. You have a question. So why are you afraid to contact Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrett for an answer?

I can't answer your questions, because I am not an expert in calorimetry. But it's a trivial matter, because it is not necessary to prove that the airliners could not have disturbed the demo charges. NIST says the WTC1 collapse started at a floor that was minimally disturbed by airplane or fire.

Billman, your experience is with high frequency sound. How effectively does a low-frequency pressure wave imposed orthogonally to the structure (and absorbed by deformation of the structyure) translate to sound traveling through the structure?

Ian, you're a liar. There are many chemists and materials scientists. They are listed among the 14,000 "other" AE911Truth petition signers, not among the 1600 architects and engineers.

It's easy to give the appearance of winning an argument when you make up your facts. I bet you cheat at solitaire.

I can't answer your questions, because I am not an expert in calorimetry.

Brian, you know nothing about engineering or explosives or geopolitics, but that never stopped you from babbling hilariously about them. Why stop now?

But it's a trivial matter, because it is not necessary to prove that the airliners could not have disturbed the demo charges. NIST says the WTC1 collapse started at a floor that was minimally disturbed by airplane or fire.

See what I mean? Ignorant babbling is par for the course for a failed janitor and liar like you.

Ian, you're a liar. There are many chemists and materials scientists. They are listed among the 14,000 "other" AE911Truth petition signers, not among the 1600 architects and engineers.

False.

It's easy to give the appearance of winning an argument when you make up your facts. I bet you cheat at solitaire.

The Duchess squeals, "...you don't have an argument. You have a question. So why are you afraid to contact Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrett for an answer?"

I don't need to contact the charlatans (Jones and Farett) for an answer--you ferret faced prevaricator. I know the answer, and I gave it to you above when I wrote--and I quote: "...when it's necessary to 'prove' that the airliners couldn't have disturbed the demolition devices, the troofers tell us the thermite reaction would not ignite at 927 ˚C; yet, in the same breath, the troofers claim that 'the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ˚C.'"

You can't have it both ways, goat fucker, so answer the question:

Question [3]: Does "nanothermite" ignite at a temperature ABOVE 927 ˚C, or does "nanothermite" ignite "in the range 415-435 ˚C"?

The answer to the question is OBVIOUS. Dr. Jones is a liar who talks out of both sides of his mouth. Jones changes the ignition temperature of "nanothermite" to suit his argument. Thus, like you, Jones is a double-talking liar and a fraud.

The conclusion is also OBVIOUS: Jones' WTC dust samples DO NOT contain "nanothermite," as the 500 ˚C margin of error in Jones' experimental results proves beyond a doubt.

Hey genius, we have been asking Jones about his claims for years, he refuses to respond. That would violate a central tenant of conspiracy theories, they are not to be challenged, tested, or reproduced in any way, they are not falsifiable.

Brian Good says:William_Rodriguez, do you have a point? As you well know, few people who were inside the building at the time of the collapse survived it.and then you claimed most of them survived in many post on this place. What is it exactly? Are you claiming that people would be able to hear explosions taking place inside box columns built of 2" steel plate which explosions did not rupture the plates but only bulged them?Absolutely, if you stand next to them you will not only hear them but also feel them. Do you know how sound is transmitted? As Billman pointed out and many experts I have interviewed, yes, I understand now how sound is transmitted.

Now, do tell me, is this the kind of Bullshit you are trying to inject in Richard Gage's new video? I know you are back in there and have also pushed your views more than anybody else working on that project. I also know you started again using the organization to attack Barrett and others. Why did Gage get you back in there? simply, you know your BS and you are a cheap volunteer work. Can't wait for your "expert" scriptwriting to come out. As I said before on Radio, I will not support anything that has to do with you....ever!

ArseHooligan, still trying to change the subject--you thread hijacking degenerate?

Answer the questions:

Question [1]: How do you explain the 500 ˚C temperature differential between Jones' thermite ignition temperature test, which demonstrates that thermite will fail to ignite at 927 ˚C, and Jones' claim that "the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ˚C"?

Question [2]: How does a differential scanning calorimeter introduce a 500 ˚C margin of error in Jones' experimental results?

Question [3]: Does "nanothermite" ignite at a temperature ABOVE 927 ˚C, or does "nanothermite" ignite "in the range 415-435 ˚C"?

It's kind of hilarious to see him going after James like this. I guess you'd have to have major delusions of grandeur to still think highly of yourself when you're an unemployed 20-something virgin in a ratty black t-shirt who believes in 9/11 "truth" idiocy.

Jesus, if I were in his place, I'd probably shoot myself out of embarrassment.

Oh, and James, it's not a homonym either, so you got that wrong too, genius.

This right here, this is what makes Truthers so fascinating. They can collect and remember an amazing array of facts, but they cannot assemble a tenable narrative from them. It's as if an absurd conclusion is fine as long as you've sourced every sentence.

Dishonesty can part of Trutherism, particularly profit-driven Truthers like Richard Gage. But you know what most of them remind me of? A reasonably bright child. The mind is active, the thinking follows a certain logic, but it's constrained within limited knowledge and experience.

I have little kids and it's interesting to watch how they figure the world out. Their perceptions shift as they learn. This process becomes arrested somehow with Truthers: the perception becomes fixed, and information judged against the perception.

I dunno, it's fascinating. It's only frustrating if you try to fix it.

GMS, what gives you the idea that transmitters would need to be invisible?

Um, the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever of explosives in the rubble of the towers? Where are these transmitters, petgoat?

See, Richard Gage, being a relatively intelligent con artist, knows this is a problem, which is why he concentrates on super nanothermite. You, having the abysmal intellect one would expect from a failed janitor who washes his hair with soap, continue to babble about explosives.

This is how you guys reinforce your idiotic beliefs--by inventing unnecessary and irrelevant restrictions to the process.

My, such squealing!

Yes, logic and evidence do have the nasty habit of constraining the process. That's why, despite your obvious sexual perversions, I know you weren't responsible for molesting little boys at Penn State.

Billman, your experience is with high frequency sound. How effectively does a low-frequency pressure wave imposed orthogonally to the structure (and absorbed by deformation of the structyure) translate to sound traveling through the structure?

...wow. I'm struggling to contain laughter as you first demonstrate you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and then try to cover it up with some big words to describe right angle curves as if they have something to do with sound.

Well, first off, Sonar, as used in pretty much any Navy vessel equipped with it, is both active and passive. Active sends out both high and low frequency waves and sometimes both at once in weird R2-D2 sounding patterns.

Passive just listens.

Do you think submarines just send out high frequency sounds, or something? Why would the Navy only use High Frequency? I have no idea what you're trying to infer by suggesting that my Navy experience was limited to High Frequency only.

Maybe you're drawing on memories of news articles where the Navy used some new high frequencies that caused whales to kill themselves... I don't know.

In fact, while trained to operate the active sonar, my primary specialty was the towed array, which is all passive, and mainly designed for looking for low frequency sounds.

There are special ships that are basically a motorized barge with a very long towed array that use extremely low frequency sounds to pick up submarines.

Sound travels 4 times faster in water than it does in the air, and 10 times faster through solids, such as putting your ear to a train rail to see if a train is coming, or to the ground to see if a posse is comin' to round you up.

Sound also does not travel in any kind of "orthogonally" affected way to bounce off right angles as you're suggesting. It travels in waves which even in an empty room, sometimes a sound in one area can sound like it's coming from a different area, and it has nothing to do with right angles.

I'm struggling to contain laughter as you first demonstrate you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and then try to cover it up with some big words to describe right angle curves as if they have something to do with sound.

That's pretty much all Brian ever does. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and he uses big words to try to make himself look smart.

We should have a competition to see who can come up with the most "Brian Good" statement. I'll start:

"Critics contend this material is molten aluminum from Flight 175. However, these claims have been shown to be false. Even if the devices were affected in some way by the planes, this does not automatically mean that the overall demolition of the Towers was affected. If anything, the molten metal flowing from the South Tower is very likely evidence of thermitic-based devices placed in the building which may have been disturbed and ignited by the plane impact itself. "

The floor where the molten material is flowing from is the location of a commercial UPS, essentually a room full of lead battery backups which belongs to the bank on that floor. Last time I checked lead has a much lower melting point. It's a simple case of matching the floor in the video with the WTC floor/tenent plans.

Ian, why would you expect the transmitters to be recovered? You are as ignorant of the process as GMS is.

Billman, I know right-angle curves have something to do with sound. I've experienced the frequency-filtration when hearing music playing around the corner in city streets.

What would be orthogonal would be the pressure wave from the explosive. Since the explosion is the source of the sound, that's the sound is applied to the surface orthogonally.

And all this talk about sounds from explosions being transmitted through steel and and audible to those standing next to the columns are only proving my point--that very likely explosions taking place inside hollow steel columns which distorted but did not burst the columns would not be audible to people outside the building--especially not when covered by the noise of a collapsing building.

Thus the claims that explosives could not have been used because some survivor would have heard them are clearly bogus.

Ian, why would you expect the transmitters to be recovered? You are as ignorant of the process as GMS is.

Yes, I forgot. Dick Cheney sent modified attack baboons into the wreckage to remove all the evidence of explosives before they recovery began.

Billman, I know right-angle curves have something to do with sound. I've experienced the frequency-filtration when hearing music playing around the corner in city streets.

*facepalm*

And all this talk about sounds from explosions being transmitted through steel and and audible to those standing next to the columns are only proving my point--that very likely explosions taking place inside hollow steel columns which distorted but did not burst the columns would not be audible to people outside the building--especially not when covered by the noise of a collapsing building.

So the building was collapsing before the explosives were set off?

Also, why are you talking about explosives when thermite was allegedly what brought the towers down?

Also, why do you always tell us about witnesses who heard explosions when they could not have heard the detonation of explosives?

Also, why do you expect any of us to take you seriously when you post insane gibberish like this?

Thus the claims that explosives could not have been used because some survivor would have heard them are clearly bogus.

Yup, so we look for evidence of explosives being used, of which we find....nothing.

So it's time to start babbling about thermite again, Brian, because you've hit a dead end again.

MGF, lead when melted is not orange. NIST does not suggest that the pouring metal is lead. It always amuses me when debunkers propose theories that not even NIST will entertain.

NIST doesn't suggest it was steel either, but that doesn't stop you from posting endless spam about it being steel.

Ian, I didn't suggest that you were gay. I suggested that you were NOT at The Roxy.

Yes, it's always a good time to ask if the widows have had their questions answered. It's always a good time to ask if the antiwar movement has ended the war in Afghanistan, a good time to ask the American Cancer Society to ask if it has eradicated cancer, a good time to ask Amnesty International if it has freed all the political prisoners, a good time to ask the Center for Disease Control if they have eradicated disease in America, and a good time to ask AG Holder if he has solved the crime problem yet.

MGF, if you want to suggest that the orange liquid pouring out of the towers was not the steel it appears to be but instead was molten lead with bits of flaming carpet it in, I suggest that you do a youtube video to show how that works.

But I warn you, it's very likely that NIST already tried that experiment and found it didn't yield the desired results and they thus abandoned the lead-with-flaming carpet hypothesis.

NIST then turned to the alumninum-with-flaming-carpet hypothesis and, it appears, never ran the experiment to find out whether flaming carpet in molten aluminum makes it look just like molten steel.

Ian, I didn't suggest that you were gay. I suggested that you were NOT at The Roxy.

Nobody cares.

Yes, it's always a good time to ask if the widows have had their questions answered.

So have they?

It's always a good time to ask if the antiwar movement has ended the war in Afghanistan, a good time to ask the American Cancer Society to ask if it has eradicated cancer, a good time to ask Amnesty International if it has freed all the political prisoners, a good time to ask the Center for Disease Control if they have eradicated disease in America, and a good time to ask AG Holder if he has solved the crime problem yet.

Actually, none of these groups will accomplish these goals, although it's worth trying to make those situations better.

Of course, the difference is that ending war in Afghanistan, or curing cancer, or freeing political prisoners would be big events that people would be happy about. Nobody cares about your "widows".

MGF, if you want to suggest that the orange liquid pouring out of the towers was not the steel it appears to be but instead was molten lead with bits of flaming carpet it in, I suggest that you do a youtube video to show how that works.

I love that the default position is the delusions of a failed janitor. Brian doesn't have to prove that the metal was steel, we have to prove that it wasn't.

That's not how things work, Brian. You're the one making loony claims. Back them up with evidence.

Of course, you have no evidence, so you'll simple babble about magic thermite elves.

Ian, nearly 18,000 people have signed a petition of solidarity with the widows. That's not nobody. Seems to me there's about 5 people here who claim nobody cares, but provide no evidence to that effect. Let's see, 5 people or 18,000 people. Who's nobody?

Nobody has to prove that the molten pour was steel. It doesn't matter. There is plenty of evidence otherwise of molten steel in the rubble pile--including the testimony of 5 PhDs, a FDNY Captain, and one of the design engineers of the WTC. There's also a 40-pound ingot of the stuff.

If you want to claim it was molten lead, you have to prove that bits of flaming carpet can make molten lead look just like molten steel.

The only one babbling about magic thermite elves is you. You ongoing demonstration of your incompetent reasoning processes is greatly discrediting your position.

I like Brian, not only is he a loon, pervert, stalker and abuser, but he's an embarrasment to the Truth Movement as well.

Brian's just showing his emotions because Carol doesn't want anything to do with him. He wants Kevin and Willie dead for no reason and he got thrown out of the TM for stalking Carol, Kevin, and Willie.

Ian, nearly 18,000 people have signed a petition of solidarity with the widows.

See what I mean? Nobody cares.

Nobody has to prove that the molten pour was steel. It doesn't matter. There is plenty of evidence otherwise of molten steel in the rubble pile--including the testimony of 5 PhDs, a FDNY Captain, and one of the design engineers of the WTC. There's also a 40-pound ingot of the stuff.

See what I mean? No evidence that it was steel. Just the delusions of a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

If you want to claim it was molten lead, you have to prove that bits of flaming carpet can make molten lead look just like molten steel.

False.

The only one babbling about magic thermite elves is you. You ongoing demonstration of your incompetent reasoning processes is greatly discrediting your position.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's a failed janitor who lives with his parents, washes his hair with soap, and was kicked out of the truth movement. All he has left is this blog where everyone laughs at him.

Ian, recently after over a year of work, activists delivered a petition of 15,000 signatures to the California state legislature. That show of support has resulted in 2 assembly committees voting to send the associated bill to the floor.

Statistics show that for every one of the 18,000 people who have signed the AE911Truth petition, there are 2,000 who find the controlled demolition hypothesis credible.

A similar amplification suggests 36,000,000 Americans who care about the widows' questions, and 10,000 who don't.

Ian, recently after over a year of work, activists delivered a petition of 15,000 signatures to the California state legislature. That show of support has resulted in 2 assembly committees voting to send the associated bill to the floor.

Nobody cares.

Statistics show that for every one of the 18,000 people who have signed the AE911Truth petition, there are 2,000 who find the controlled demolition hypothesis credible.

Can you show me these statistics, Brian? I mean, I would take your word for it, except that you're a delusional liar and failed janitor who believes in modified attack babbons.

A similar amplification suggests 36,000,000 Americans who care about the widows' questions, and 10,000 who don't.

Looking back, however, both Breitweiser and Van Auken believe their huge battle to get the commission up and running left too much undone. After fighting so hard to get it set up, they became some of its fiercest critics. Van Auken has spoken of too many questions going unanswered, too many redactions in the final 2004 report and its reluctance to be too critical of senior government figures. That has led some critics to say she flirts with conspiracy theories, but she insists that she just wants the truth. “It is just unanswered questions,” she said.

So it was the 4 9/11 Widows who commissioned the 9/11 Commission in the first place and then Brian has the balls to say that the Commission was "wrong"? I think Brian's trying to say is that the 9/11 Widows are the ones "lying".

Ian, if you'd learn to google maybe you wouldn't be so ignorant. The scripps-howard poll of 2006 shows that 10% think explosives in the towers was "somewhat likely" and 6% "very likely". Of course that's just the ones who were willing to say so on the phone, and note that was before AE911Truth was founded.

Toothless and Always Wacko, AE911Truth has dozens of highrise architects, including Dan Barnum, who worked on #2 Shell in Houston, and Robert McCoy, who worked on a 44-story building in San Francisco. You make up your facts.

Oh, ButtGale. So calculations and statistics are nonsense. Thanks for making yourself clear.

Dan Barnum, F.A.I.A, is a graduate architect from Rice University and holds a Bachelor of Architecture degree. He has been practicing architecture for the past 40 years and has designed a variety of buildings from small houses to high rise office buildings. Highrise building projects that he worked on include One Shell and Two Shell in Houston, Texas, as well as the structure that used to be the Houston Lighting and Power building, now the Houston Public Works office building. He was also a project manager for a 22-story office building in Akron, Ohio. Barnum is a fellow of the American Institute of Architects. Fellowship is the highest honor bestowed on itsmembers by the Institute.

A 22 story building isn't the same as a 110 story office building. You lost!

Robert McCoy holds a Bachelor’s Degree in architecture from the University of California at Berkeley (1963). He has been a licensed California architect since 1964. From about 1965 to 1985, most of his experience was in multi-story high-rise, steel-frame buildings. The first major high-rise building that he was involved with was a headquarters for Pacific Gas and Electric Company in San Francisco. It’s a 34-story building. He alsoparticipated in the design of 575 Market Street, a 44-story building for Standard Oil, which is their headquarters building, and 100 Pine Street, which is a 34-story building.

And still no experience working on 110 story office buidings. You lose again.

Ian, if you'd learn to google maybe you wouldn't be so ignorant. The scripps-howard poll of 2006 shows that 10% think explosives in the towers was "somewhat likely" and6% "very likely". Of course that's just the ones who were willing to say so on the phone, and note that was before AE911Truth was founded.

Exactly. Nobody cares. 9/11 "truth" is a movement for fringe crackpots. After all, half of the country believes in creationism, but that doesn't mean there's any doubt about evolution.

You can keep squealing and saying "you make up your facts" but it doesn't change the fact that you're a failed janitor who will never get the widows questions answered.

Every time Brian makes a comment about the 9/11 Widows (Jersey Girls) he's telling us that they're the ones "lying" because they failed to answer their own questions when they set up the 9/11 Commission.

The Duchess of Palo Alto squeals, "...I have addressed the OP: Take it up with Dr. Farrer and Dr. Jones. I've never operated a DSC."

That's not an answer, Duchess, it's an evasion. And I don't need Dr. Frick and Dr. Frack to "address" the issue.

FACT: A differential scanning calorimeter can't introduce a ~500 ˚C error into an ignition temperature measurement. Such an error would render the method of measurement worthless to any scientific investigation. End of "debate."

In fact, you behaved exactly as I predicted in my first post to this thread at time stamp 18 January, 2012 17:44. To be specific, you falsely proclaimed "no contradiction has been shown," when the contradiction is obvious to everyone but you. Your responses are 100% fact-free and illogical, and you're trying to hijack the thread.

You're as predictable as you are dishonest.

The Duchess of Palo Alto squeals, "...Please explain what exactly is nonsense about my statistics and calculations. You wouldn't make any claims you can't prove, would you?"

I just explained to you that we've already been over this subject and your "calculations" and "statistics" are nonsense. The "debate" is over.

As I said previously, you're not going to hijack the thread, so give it up, Duchess.

ButtGale, you're the only one claiming a ~500 ˚C error in an ignition temperature measurement.

You haven't demonstrated any such error. No contradiction has been shown. Different apparatus, different methodology. Why would you expect the same temperature? Would you expect to travel tol the grocery store at the same speed on rollerskates and on skis?

You haven't shown my calculations and statistics to be in error. You've only made empty claims that they are.

"Statistics show that for every one of the 18,000 people who have signed the AE911Truth petition, there are 2,000 who find the controlled demolition hypothesis credible.

A similar amplification suggests 36,000,000 Americans who care about the widows' questions, and 10,000 who don't. "

Miley Cyrus has 17,392,413 followers on Facebook.

As of March, 2010, McDonalds has sold 245 billion burgers.

Large groups of people are famous for poor judgement.

"Toothless and Always Wacko, AE911Truth has dozens of highrise architects, including Dan Barnum, who worked on #2 Shell in Houston, and Robert McCoy, who worked on a 44-story building in San Francisco. You make up your facts."

I haven't checked the roster, is Art Vandelay one of the architects. I respect him.

ToothlessWacko, where did you get the idea that the Jersey Girls were the heads of the 9/11 Commission? Maybe if you'd learn to google you could check your facts and stop embarrassing yourself.

ButtGale, you have not explained why my calculations and statistics are nonsense. Are you one of them "know-nothing" guys?

MGF, you're only demonstrating why you don't understand analogies. I worked backwards from 36,000,000 Americans who said in the Scipps-Howard poll that explosives in the towers was likely or somewhat likely.

You're working forward from 17,000,000 Miley Cyrus followers on facebook.

MGF, Scripps-Howard found that 16% of Americans were willing in 2006 to say on the phone that they thought the presence of explosives in the towers was likely or somewhat likely.

Nobody cares.

That was in 2006, before Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was founded. And doubtless there are more who believe the same thing, but who were unwilling to say so on the phone.

Nobody cares about AE911Truth. Nobody cares about your widows. Nobody cares how much dumbspam you post here except for those of us who laugh at you.

Point being, since there is no new information supporting thr official story and the AE911Truth message has been spreading, the number is probably much higher than a mere 36,000,000 now.

Poor Brian. He knows he's been pwn3d, he knows the truth movement is dead, he knows his "widows" will never have their questions answered, so he'll just squeal about all the invisible people who agree with him.

Ian, you seem to think that moving the goalposts, changing the subject, spreading confusion, and painting a tunnel on the cliff are clever.

Hey, I just realized that James was really comparing apples and oranges. Not only were they two different tests, but one was ordinary thermite and the other was the red-gray chips. Why would you expect to get the same results from such different materials?

Poor Brian, he's been pwn3d again, so all he can do is post spam in an attempt to obscure the fact that the widows still haven't had their questions answered.

Also, what do you know about intellect, Brian? You're a failed janitor who washes his hair with soap and calls people "girls". You have to live with your parents because you have the mind of a 1st grader.

Hey Brian, I noticed that you removed the post on your Scholars page in which they told you to get lost. I guess it must be humiliating to be expelled from every truther group, huh? While you're squealing and calling us "girls" here, serious researchers like Bill Deagle and Kevin Barrett are commanding large audiences around the globe.

Ian, you lie. Barrett flew to London to talk to 100 people in a 1000-seat hall.

Exactly. People want to hear what he has to say. You, on the other hand, have been kicked out of every truther group for being a liar and a lunatic and a sex stalker. All you have left is this blog, where we keep you around so we can laugh at your insane babbling about magic thermite elves.

I should ask you, haven't you gotten bored of spamming this blog after 3 years? We're exactly in the same position we were when you first showed up here: the widows don't have their questions answered, "meatball on a fork" has not been published, there are no new investigations, Willie Rodriguez is still rightly recognized as a hero, and you're still a failed janitor living with your parents.

The OP is comparing apples and oranges. Not only were they two different tests, but one was ordinary thermite and the other was the red-gray chips. Why would you expect to get the same results from such different materials?

Maybe fireproof thermite was used on the fire floors, and nanothermitic material used on other floors. The demand that every material satisfy every need is not rational.

Speaking of running and Craig Ranke, have you accepted his debate challenge yet? Last time I checked, you ran away squealing and crying when he challenged you. No wonder he's a respected researcher while you're a failed janitor who was expelled from the truth movement.

Ian, there is no debate challenge. Ranke withdrew the previous one. He was getting his ass kicked so badly in the pre-debate discussion that he changed the rules of the challenge and withdrew it.

I don't think debating him would be worth my time. I can't find out how many people attended their Toronto program--which leads me to believe that attendance was embarrassingly shy.I have proven that every flyover/flyaway flight path except turning up the river to join the DCA departing traffic stream is impossible--and that one is impossible too.

Ian, there is no debate challenge. Ranke withdrew the previous one. He was getting his ass kicked so badly in the pre-debate discussion that he changed the rules of the challenge and withdrew it.

I don't think debating him would be worth my time. I can't find out how many people attended their Toronto program--which leads me to believe that attendance was embarrassingly shy.I have proven that every flyover/flyaway flight path except turning up the river to join the DCA departing traffic stream is impossible--and that one is impossible too.

Toothless--certainly you can have fireproof buildings. It's just a matter of engineering and cost. One way to make them fireproof is to limit the flammable materials that are available--keep papers in fireproof library rooms with controlled atmosphere, and outside of those rooms have only metal furniture and fireproof carpets and wall-coverings.

The Titanic was not designed to be truly unsinkable because its watertight compartments were not sealed at the top. If they had been, it would have been for all practical purposes unsinkable.

Ian, I didn't run away from anything. I wanted time to promote the debate. I was kicking his ass so thoroughly in the pre-debate discussions that I saw no reason to rush into anything. Ranke changed the rules of the challenge so he could have it furtively and get it over with.

Then you shouldn't have a problem showing me evidence that fireproofing didn't come off from a 500 mph jet crashing into it.

One way to make them fireproof is to limit the flammable materials that are available--keep papers in fireproof library rooms with controlled atmosphere, and outside of those rooms have only metal furniture and fireproof carpets and wall-coverings.

Ahh yes, use the movie "Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson as the background for your delusions.

Question [4]: If "nanothermite" ignites "in the range 415-435 ˚C," how did the "nanothermite" manage to survive the airliner impacts?

The duchess squeals and posts more dumbspam, "...As to question #4, what makes you think nanothermite survived the airplane impacts? What makes you think there was any nanothermite at all on the impact floors?"

First, the idiots point to thermite and say "See? Thermite ignites at a temperature above 1700 ˚F (927 ˚C)," and then in the same breath they point to Jones' paper as evidence while his paper clearly states that the red/gray chips ignite "in the range 415-435 ˚C."

And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of "comparing apples to oranges"? Typical troofer! Always accuse your detractors of the crimes YOU commit.

Your request for a manufacturer's data sheet for a material that has been recovered from dust samples is dishonest. I suggest that you study the nature of the material, and then perhaps take the matter up with Lawrence Livermore Labs.

I don't think that anyone has claimed that nanothermite survived the airplane impacts on the impact floors, but I see no reason to think it wouldn't. NIST has not one core steel samples showing heating to 400 C. They have none showing heating above 250 C.

For you to conclude from the fact that nanothermite was present at Ground Zero that therefore it was present in the impact floors is typical of your faulty logic.

Has it escaped your attention that thermite and nanothermite are two different things?

I'm getting really tired of checking out your references and finding that they do not say what you claim. I don't see anything in the AE ref that says there was nanothermite on the impact floors. You're just playing with straw dolls.

The Duchess of Palo Alto brays, "...Your request for a manufacturer's data sheet for a material that has been recovered from dust samples is dishonest."

Another evasion.

Wrong. Jones et al, claim, without the benefit or evidence or corroboration, that "nanothermite" was used to demolish the Twin Towers--and they say as much in the the A&E 9/11 "truth" FAQ.

Thus, my request for an MSDS (Material Safety DataSheet) is not "dishonest" at all. If the red/gray chips are in fact "nanothermite" they will ignite at a temperature verified by the MSDS.

So put up or shut up, ass, and answer the question.

Question: Do you have any proof from a credible source to substantiate the "nanothermite" ignites "in the range 415-435 ˚C" assertion?

The Duchess of Palo Alto squeals, "...I don't think that anyone has claimed that nanothermite survived the airplane impacts on the impact floors, but I see no reason to think it wouldn't."

Wrong again, Duchess.

"...Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 ºF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal." -- Steven E. Jones, A&E 9/11 "truth" FAQ.

See? You didn't read the A&E 9/11 "truth" FAQ. So which is it? Did you read the FAQ, or are you an idiot, Duchess?

Take your pick.

The Duchess of Palo Alto brays, "...Has it escaped your attention that thermite and nanothermite are two different things?"

I know damned well that "nanothermite" and thermite are two different substances--you lying cretin.

"...Second, a demolition using advanced nanothermite material (which has been identified in the WTC dust) may help to explain why the fires started by the planes did not set off explosive devices." -- A&E 9/11 "truth"'s FAQ.

Yeah, where would anyone get the strange idea that "nanothermite survived the airplane impacts on the impact floors"?

Now that I've proven you're an ass, Duchess, answer the damned questions.

You claim they're saying thermite was used to demolish the towers, and therefore a data sheet on the material should exist? There is no logical connection between those two propositions.

Dr. Jones heated thermite with a torch. It did not ignite at 1700 F. Nanothermite ignited at 400 C in the DSC. Thermite is not nanothermite, so your claim there's some contradiction there is just typical ButtGale idiocy.

Nanothermite could possibly survive the airplane impact because the steel samples show that steel in the cores never got any hotter than 250 C.

Nanothermite could also survive the airplane impact if it were not used on the impact floors.

The Duchess of Palo Alto brays, "...You claim they're saying thermite was used to demolish the towers, and therefore a data sheet on the material should exist? There is no logical connection between those two propositions."

I didn't claim anything, Duchess, I quoted the A&E 9/11 "truth" FAQ.

"...Second, a demolition using advanced nanothermite material (which has been identified in the WTC dust) may help to explain why the fires started by the planes did not set off explosive devices" -- A&E 9/11 "truth" FAQ.

And yes, there's a MSDS for every substance, so a Material Safety DataSheet will verify the ignition temperature of "nanothermite."

The Duchess of Palo Alto brays, "...Nanothermite ignited at 400 C in the DSC."

No, you have no proof that "[n]anothermite ignited at 400 C in the DSC." Jones' experimental results have never been corroborated by peer reviewed scientific investigations. So don't cite Jones' disputed results as "evidence" of anything in support of your pseudo-scientific sophistry.

The Duchess of Palo Alto brays, "...Nanothermite could possibly survive the airplane impact because the steel samples show that steel in the cores never got any hotter than 250 C."

False. You're jumping to conclusions that are totally unsupported by the evidence. You have no evidence that "nanothermite" was in contact with the structural steel. Conjecture, unsupported by verified scientific analysis, is not evidence.

The Duchess of Palo Alto brays, "...Nanothermite could also survive the airplane impact if it were not used on the impact floors."

Yes, and "they" could have planted modified attack baboons as well...and we'd have just as much evidence to support that claim as you have for your idiotic "nanothermite" conjecture.

Nevertheless, you steadfastly refuse to answer the questions.

And the reason you refuse to answer the questions is clear for all to see: You have not a shred of evidence to support the claim that "nanothermite" was present at Ground Zero, nor can you prove that "nanothermite" ignites "in the range 415-435 ˚C."